Wonder Woman is a hero only the military-industrial complex could create

Wonder Woman with her allies--"the humane members of the world community, represented by the U.S.–Chris Pine is the male lead and Gadot’s love interest–and a ragtag support group that includes a Scot, a native American, and a generic Arab, presumably symbolizing 'moderate' Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan," writes Jonathan Cook (Photo: Clay Enos/Warner Bros)



For a while I have been pondering whether to write a review of the newly released “Wonder Woman,” to peel back the layer of comic book fun to reveal below the film’s disturbing and not-so-covert political and militaristic messages.

There is usually a noisy crowd who deride any such review with shouts of “Lighten up! It’s only a movie!”–as though popular culture is neither popular nor culture, the soundtrack to our lives that slowly shapes our assumptions and our values, and does so at a level we rarely examine critically.

My argument is that this much-praised Gal Gadot vehicle–seemingly about a peace-loving superhero, Wonder Woman, from the DC Comics stable–is actually carefully purposed propaganda designed to force-feed aggressive western military intervention, dressed up as humanitarianism, to unsuspecting audiences.

In short, this is straight-up propaganda for the military-industrial complex. It would have looked and sounded identical had it been scripted by a joint team from the Pentagon and the Israel Defense Forces.

In their new book “National Security Cinema,” the pair argue that the Pentagon, CIA and National Security Agency have meddled in the production of at least 800 major Hollywood movies and 1,000 TV titles. That is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, as they concede:

“It is impossible to know exactly how widespread this military censorship of entertainment is because many files are still being withheld.”

They write that their book “details how U.S. government involvement also includes script rewrites on some of the biggest and most popular films, including James Bond, the Transformers franchise, and movies from the Marvel and DC cinematic universes.”

The need for Pentagon toys

This isn’t just about minor adjustments, but wholesale collusion between film-makers and the military: “If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DoD [Department of Defense] don’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts—Production Assistance Agreements—which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script.”

The fact that script-writers, producers and directors on these mega-budget pictures know their film may never make it into production if it does not get a thumbs-up from the Pentagon inevitably influences the choice of subjects, the political and military premises of selected films, and the story lines.

One movie, “Countermeasures,” was ditched after the military objected to a script that “ included references to the Iran-Contra scandal … Similarly “Fields of Fire” and “Top Gun 2” were never made because they couldn’t obtain military support, again due to politically controversial aspects of the scripts.”

One can imagine just how stringent the conditions imposed by the Pentagon must be, if it felt compelled to reject a movie like “Top Gun 2,” the sequel to the “flyboys with toys” killing fest that starred a young Tom Cruise.

The two authors add: “The documents also record the pro-active nature of the military’s operations in Hollywood and that they are finding ways to get involved during the earliest stages of development, ‘when characters and storylines are most easily shaped to the Army’s benefit’.”

Bad apples, not bad institutions

In addition, film-makers are pressured into changing scripts that suggest institutional or systemic problems in the U.S. security agencies.

The two authors observe that producer Jerry Bruckheimer has admitted that the script of the film Enemy of the State was changed under pressure from the NSA so that the wrongdoings at the heart of the film would be the responsibility of a single individual, not the agency itself.

“This idea of using cinema to pin the blame for problems on isolated rogue agents or bad apples, thus avoiding any notion of systemic, institutional or criminal responsibility, is right out of the CIA/DOD’s playbook,” they observe.

So not only are movies critical of U.S. and western politics and militarism almost certain to be off-limits for a big-budget production, but that void is certain to be filled by film proposals the studio is confident will win approval from the Pentagon, CIA and NSA.

And this is, of course, on top of the fact that the Hollywood money-men are themselves part of a larger globalized financial elite that depends on the proceeds of the homeland security industry, arms manufacturers and war profiteers. These financiers themselves are certain to prefer funding films that support a neoliberal worldview at home and a neoconservative policy of warmongering abroad.

As Secker and Alford conclude: “In societies already eager to use our hard power overseas, the shaping of our popular culture to promote a pro-war mindset must be taken seriously.”

Gal Gadot and the IDF

All of this is the context for deciphering the egregious propaganda in favor of western military violence, and the portrayal of peace-seeking as “appeasement”, that is Wonder Woman.

There has been plenty of guffawing at Middle East countries, including Lebanon, for seeking to ban Wonder Woman because it stars Gal Gadot, an Israeli beauty queen turned actress who plays the title role.

In fact, it is understandable that the Lebanese might object to a film heavily promoting Gadot as the world’s savior, given that she served in the Israeli army, one that brutally occupied parts of their country for two decades until 2000 and continues to maintain a belligerent occupation of the Palestinians.

But there is also an undeniable irony to Gadot playing an Amazonian goddess who opposes the militarism of men, and cannot bear to see the suffering of children in war, when in real life she publicly cheered on the Israeli army’s massive bombardment in 2014 of the imprisoned population of Gaza, which led to the killing of some 500 Palestinian children there.

But more importantly, it is not just that Gadot, a former IDF soldier, is now the face of Wonder Woman; it is that the film’s superhero character too almost perfectly embodies the shared militaristic values of the IDF and the Pentagon. If there is one film whose script suggests it was jointly engineered by the Pentagon and Israeli army, it is Wonder Woman.

Hillary Clinton as Wonder Woman?

The film is set near the end of the First World War, a cataclysmic confrontation between two colonial powers, Britain and Germany, each trying to assert its dominance in Europe. The film-makers blur their focus sufficiently to gloss over the problem that there were no good guys in that “war to end all wars”. Instead in true Hollywood fashion, the First World War is presented simply as a prelude (or prequel) to the Second World War and the rise of the Nazis.

The Germans are murderous villains, while the British are the flawed–until Gadot shows them the error of their ways – defenders of humanity. In fact, the film prefers to cast the anti-German side as “Allies”, the humane members of the world community, represented by the U.S.–Chris Pine is the male lead and Gadot’s love interest–and a ragtag support group that includes a Scot, a native American, and a generic Arab, presumably symbolizing “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

The British leadership is trying to find ways to make peace and end the war, but is stymied by an evil presence. A German super-general, Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston), believes he can win the war decisively by developing a horrifying gas that will wipe out men, women and children, forcing the British to surrender on his terms. To demonstrate his power, he tests the gas on innocent villagers on the front lines in Belgium.

All of this might sound disconcertingly familiar to anyone who has been following the western media-scripted coverage that has for several years been trying to promote more aggressive “humanitarian intervention” in Syria–and before that, and more successfully, in Libya and Iraq.

Are the British leaders, seeking a peace deal with the Germans, supposed to be those “appeasers” in the West who have stood in the way of “intervention” in Syria, blocking no-fly zones and bombing runs that could bring down the Syrian government?

And, in an even more disturbing, if now outdated parallel, given the film’s aggressive identity politics, is Wonder Woman–the Amazonian who brings peace through overpowering military violence–a stand-in for Hillary Clinton? When the movie was in production, the filmmakers must have assumed it would be released as Clinton was enjoying her early months in office as the first female U.S. president.

The use of Wonder Woman to justify Clinton’s well-documented blood lust–the woman who laughed as “our rebels” murderously sodomized Libya’s Col Gaddafi, saying: “We came, we saw, he died” – would have proved timely had the U.S. election turned out differently.

War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength

Those who have not seen the film, and take it seriously as entertainment, may wish to skip this section, which includes a significant spoiler.

The source of man’s evil in Wonder Woman is the only surviving Greek god, Ares, who is hiding somewhere in the human world. Wonder Woman believes she can end all war and human suffering only if she can locate Ares and kill him–before he kills her.

No one in the human world, of course, believes Wonder Woman, and they foolishly dismiss her ideas as lunacy. And for a while Wonder Woman makes a terrible mistake in thinking the German Ludendorff (Saddam / Gaddafi / Assad) is Ares. It is late in the film that she discovers she has been on the wrong scent.

Humankind’s ultimate enemy is not Ludendorff, but the kindly Sir Patrick Morgan (David Thewlis), who has spent the entire film counseling for negotiations and peace with the Germans.

The ultimate evil, Wonder Woman finds, is the wolf in sheep’s clothing among us: those who preach fraternity, compassion and turning the other cheek are the ones who make possible the killing of the innocents.

Those who appear to care, those who seem to offer a route out of bloodshed and war–those who defeat the aims and threaten the profits of the military-industrial complex–are in truth nothing more than appeasers. Their efforts are certain, even intended, to lead to greater suffering.

Militarism, superior firepower, and an absolute belief in the justness of one’s cause, as Wonder Woman is reminded by her Amazonian tutors during her childhood Krav Maga combat training (Gadot was herself an Israeli army combat trainer) are the way to save mankind from the evildoers.

There is no time to delay, to stand back, to question or to negotiate. Wonder Woman is outraged by the dithering of the men around her. She wants to be at the front line as soon as possible, to kick ass.

“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”–and all of it is good for business, the film Wonder Woman concludes in truly Orwellian fashion.

A veneer of identity politics

Of course, this story–like all effective propaganda–is supposed to work its magic at a subconscious level, where it cannot be interrogated by our reason and our critical faculties. But even so, a few critics–themselves enthusiastic liberal interventionists–seem to have intuited the movie’s message.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a reviewer with the clearest sense of how the film panders to the pro-war sentiments and identity politics of many liberals is the film critic of the conservative Washington Free Beacon.

Sonny Bunch applauds the way the film “highlights the need for the strong to intervene on behalf of the weak and the oppressed, and treats as villains quislings who sue for a peace that will bring only more destruction.”

But he also understands how the film has been crafted to make its war-mongering more palatable to liberals. Wonder Woman, he writes, proves “you could slap an identity politics veneer on just about any neoconservative policy and progressives would lap it up. […] Liberal interventionism is back, baby!”

Drooling from liberals

And sure enough, the community of largely liberal film reviewers has mostly drooled over Wonder Woman. Despite dire acting from Gadot, preposterous dialogue and a risible screenplay, the film has racked up an astounding 92 percent approval rating from critics on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes.

Here is a brief selection of their assessments:

Dana Stevens, of Slate: “This is a movie about battling evil that pauses to ask what evil is and whether it’s necessary to understand its nature in order to defeat it.”

A. O. Scott, of the New York Times: “Her sacred duty is to bring peace to the world. Accomplishing it requires a lot of killing, but that’s always the superhero paradox. […] Unlike most of her male counterparts, its heroine is not trying to exorcise inner demons or work out messiah issues. She wants to function freely in the world, to help out when needed and to be respected for her abilities. No wonder she encounters so much resistance.”

The paradoxes of power

Wonder Woman grapples with the paradoxes of military power every American interventionist and Israeli patriot understands. To save the “beautiful children”, we must sometimes hurry to intervene and kill ruthlessly, even if the other side’s children are the ones who must be sacrificed.

Wonder Woman wants to “function freely”: she must enjoy the right to go wherever her interests take her. She cannot be shackled by borders in her quest for justice. She is there to “help out” others in trouble, even if she alone gets to decide who needs help and what counts as trouble. And she needs “respect”, and is prepared to force others to accord it to her, through her superior strength if need be.

She will face “so much resistance” because others are jealous of her power and her freedoms. They are the evildoers, and they must and will be defeated.

Is it any surprise that in the Hollywood-Pentagon world of Wonder Woman, the values of a female superhero sound exactly like those of the military men who run the West’s wars?

Now roll on “Wonder Woman 2: Time to Intervene (Humanely)”.

Advertising

About Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net.

JONATHAN COOK- “My argument is that this much-praised Gal Gadot vehicle–seemingly about a peace-loving superhero, Wonder Woman, from the DC Comics stable–is actually carefully purposed propaganda designed to force-feed aggressive western military intervention, dressed up as humanitarianism, to unsuspecting audiences.”

Since this is the essence of a Mondoweiss comment I made (quoted at the end), I concur completely. Furthermore, as you point out, this Hollywood/Deep State collusion is extensive and pernicious. I personally feel that the entertainment media is the prime transmitter of our social mythology, hence, is more important than the news media insofar as it creates the mythological worldview against which the news is evaluated. And yes, it creates a good guy versus bad guy mentality where violence is normalized and systemic factors ignored. Below is my comment from June 11.

“Wonder Woman is, perhaps, the ultimate imperial feminist. That is to say, not a feminist at all. Rather, she represents the (dare I say it?) the masculinization of feminism. The feminist as a warrior princess. Wonder Woman fits in well with our hyper militarized warfare state where violence is the primary method of combating “evil.” A real feminist would be a staunch opponent of militarism and foreign interventions, would struggle to redirect “defense” spending towards universal health care, child care, eliminating nuclear weapons, dealing with climate change, etc. In other words, transforming society away from war and militarism rather than becoming female warriors. All of these films about comic book super heroes are manifestations of a sick society. And having a Zionist Israeli as the warrior princess adds another layer of manipulation to this toxic mythology.”http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/intersectional-feminism-palestinians/#comment-881641

You’re comment was utterly stupid then and it’s utterly stupid now. Sometimes you DO Have to fight. When the Nazis were steamrolling Europe fighting them was right. You can support shit like heath care child care, getting rid of nukes and deal with climate change and realize this. Also you rather dishonestly ignore that many of the menaces superheroes fight are the guys who can level city blocks and who want to enslave the weak. In that regard yes they work as a source of inspiration.

Ryan, calm down. Your profile indicates 9 comments since 2013 with only 6 showing, all dated 8/21, all on Wonder Woman. My original comment was on 7/7, over 6 weeks ago. You can’t keep things bottled up like that. You should have called my comment stupid 6 weeks ago! And you are wrong! My comment isn’t stupid! I rather like it. Next time try to be a little more timely, okay?

Keith. You fall into the trap of assuming that all women MUST support your brand of feminism. It assumes that all women must be a type a earner or a nurturing mother figure. That’s bullshit. IT’s the right to choose what you want. And technically Diana’s character IS a diplomat.

RYAN- “Keith. You fall into the trap of assuming that all women MUST support your brand of feminism.”

Well, look who has come back to put words in my mouth on an old thread! I am a systems guy who looks at life primarily from the macro level. The structure of the political economy in large measure determines the range of choices available to each of us. In my opinion, our present highly militarized warfare state is hyper-masculine (as culturally defined) and profoundly anti-feminine. And yes, I would like to see the end of empire and the creation of a just and sustainable society which would reflect an emphasis on cooperation. Of course, that would reduce the opportunity for warrior princesses to bomb Third World peoples (mostly women and children), and to run exploitive mega corporations. My sense is that most women would welcome a demilitarized society with improved educational opportunities and universal health care. But I could be wrong. Perhaps, like you, they fantasize about kicking ass and taking names. And you seem to miss the point that violent films where “good guys” are always fighting “bad guys” tend to legitimize and normalize violence and warfare.

If anything feminism is the ability for women to chose. If a woman wants to chose to be a soldier that’s feminist. You’re no different from those who think women should be baby makers.

Also it ignores that the CHARACTER is greek, and her behavior is consistent with the ancient greek culture of the time period. Yes Gadot has made some dumbass comments but I doubt the movie is endorsing her views.

Cook’s a complete idiot in that regard. He’s right to criticize the IDF, but he looses points here, as well as when he defends Assad

No one is perfect. Therefore no one, good or bad, is going to get everything right or get everything right all of the time. Sometimes they will.

Jonathan is more right here than wrong. The authors, and their book, that he refers to have not, to my knowledge, broke new ground. Tricia Jenkins, whose book in turns refers to many others dealing with the CIA et al in Hollywood, wrote “The CIA In Hollywood.” I was put onto it by a Salon article by the late Tom Hayden (who, despite his smarts and wariness, was a victim of Camelot propaganda). Tom’s article is titled “When the CIA infiltrated Hollywood.” …

…The authors who Jonathan looks at, Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, seemed to have acquired additional details (specific movies etc) that Tricia Jenkins didn’t get at, but they both make the same basic arguments, although, as it perhaps to be expected, Secker and Alfords’ later account includes the nefarious involvement of the NSA. Hitler and Stalin threw a party and forget to invite Genghis Khan. Well, Now he’s invited, as he should be.

I found Peter Maass’s article about the CIA (et al) in Hollywood to be interesting (despite the fact that he works for Nazi-enabler Pierre Omidyar). In it he writes:

=== =
As Don Gomez, a soldier and blogger, wrote about “Zero Dark Thirty,” which portrayed torture as playing a crucial role in finding Osama bin Laden, “Filmmakers can always deflect criticism by saying ‘It’s a movie, not a documentary,’ which is true. But that ignores the reality of how it will be consumed — how they know it will be marketed and consumed.” And guess what — opinion polls show a majority of Americans think torture worked, just as ZDT said it did, even though an exhaustive Senate report concluded it did not.
= ===

Americans – who are busy chasing Pokemon monsters, or learning how to walk with their heads down (smart phones), or doing anything but reading books – don’t care enough to know (caring means knowing), and have come to believe that torture works and are therefore susceptible to the CIA-inspired hot buttons that demagogues like Trump press. Alfred W. McCoy tells the depressing story in his book “A Question Of Torture.” (I’m not sure of one of his central ideas, namely that the most effective torture is hands-off psychological torture; it’s still force in my view, but that’s a quibble) Americans are indeed, in great numbers, okay with torture. A recent article my Michael Harris, a Canadian author (and one who’s great books I’ve read) recently wrote an article lambasting the Trudeau government’s cynical re-doing of Stephen Harper’s police state Bill, C-51. Lo and behold, as Harris and Thomas Walkom (Toronto Star) point out, it keeps the most egregious aspects of C-51. Harris begins his article by noting that Loyd Axworthy (a hard-working, dedicated Liberal, on the more human side of the Party, a Wonder Man who has seen governments come and go and has survived to be a part of Trudeau’s cabinet), now as Public Safety Minister, was tasked with remaking Bill C-51, which progressives thought was the best aspect of a bad situation. And what does he do? He leaves the door open for already criminal orgs (literally, since they’re given the power to break laws) to torture.

Harris:

=-=-
Instead of unequivocally banning torture — as the Geneva Conventions do, as the U.S. Supreme Court did when it agreed that the Conventions held for all detainees in U.S. custody — Goodale invoked the principle that guided Toews to his calamitous thumbs-up for torture.
open quote 761b1bIf you allow yourself to use information derived from torture, you’re not combatting the use of torture. You’re promoting it.

The language is more euphonious, and the spooks have to go through more quasi-public process before they can act. But the bottom line is the same: Under certain circumstances, the Canadian security establishment can use information obtained by torture.
-=-=

And in my research, one of the most interesting things I’ve uncovered was a Pew poll that showed the very high support for torture among various religious denominations (U.S.).

Indeed, Our leaders, who Jesus Christ noted will present themselves as “Benefactors” are nothing but wolves in sheep’s covering, for which reason Jesus told his followers to not be like them. Today, the world is led by Benefactors in power, who, as in Noah’s day, whip up violence everywhere. They see it, in this gangster Corporatocracy, as profitable. Not to mention – now that they have self modifed themselves into being believers in inequality, deceit and violence – the fact that it just gives them a thrill. Jeff Halper’s book “War Against The People,” (should have been titled “War Against The Unarmed People”) looks at securocratic warfare, which Israel has had a lot to do with teaching others, in which elites identify the abused and agitated people as the enemy that must be pacified. There’s no question that those who do mafia capitalism are going to change their ways and quite the abuse (neoliberalism, with its prosperity for a few and austerity for many). Therefore, as Nafeez Ahmed points out, the Pentagon et al are going to deal with the problem of the abused people, which they obviously expect to happen and result in squawking, with ramped up police state laws and measures. And they will cloak it all, perversely, laughingly, in the righteous language of national security. And Hollywood can help with that.

“…the manifold ways the U.S. military and security services interfere in Hollywood…”

As Cook, and likely every one else here knows, this is nothing new. If anyone’s interested, here’s a short vid, from ’bout 5 years ago, where I edited together some of Glenn Greenwald’s comments about similar issues on Zero Dark Thirty:

RE: For a while I have been pondering whether to write a review of the newly released “Wonder Woman,” to peel back the layer of comic book fun to reveal below the film’s disturbing and not-so-covert political and militaristic messages.
There is usually a noisy crowd who deride any such review with shouts of “Lighten up! It’s only a movie!”–as though popular culture is neither popular nor culture, the soundtrack to our lives that slowly shapes our assumptions and our values, and does so at a level we rarely examine critically. ~ Jonathan Cook

TAKE THE CHALLENGE! SEE HOW MANY MINUTES OF THIS YOU CAN WATCH WITHOUT GOING “BARKING MAD”:
[This assortment of TV commercials were broadcast between January and April 1977.]
P.S. ALSO RELEVANT:
■ Von Caligari zu Hitler: Das deutsche Kino im Zeitalter der Massen (2014)
En inglés: From Caligari to Hitler: German Cinema in the Age of the Masses

Focuses on the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) and its ‘collective spirit’ in cinema. The purpose of film as a cultural tool is examined. Based on celebrated sociologist Siegfried Kracauer’s seminal book ‘From Caligari to Hitler’ (1947).

RE: “Wonder Woman is a hero only the military-industrial complex could create”

MY COMMENT: Notwithstanding her putative gender, I can easily see Wonder Woman attracting a sizable, largely male, mostly misogynistic Neo-Confederate (a/k/a Southern Nationalist) following. It is not at all uncommon for those types to idolise a “Pistol Packin’ Mama”!

I haven’t seen “Wonder Woman” and won’t pay a nickel to see it, but Jonathan Cook mars his piece by his conspiracy thinking about Syria, claiming that the filmmakers are probably part of the plot to bring the U.S. into open war with Assad forces. Cook has written at least two articles defending Seymour Hersh’s muddled whitewash of Assad sarin attacks and can’t resist throwing in an irrelevant remark in this piece.

Cook writes, “western media-scripted coverage that has for several years been trying to promote more aggressive “humanitarian intervention” in Syria–and before that, and more successfully, in Libya and Iraq. Is Ludendorff supposed to be Bashar Assad, the evil Syrian president who – as long as we discount the dissenting voices of some experts – has twice used the chemical weapon sarin against innocent civilians? Are the British leaders, seeking a peace deal with the Germans, supposed to be those ‘appeasers’ in the West who have stood in the way of ‘intervention’ in Syria, blocking no-fly zones and bombing runs that could bring down the Syrian government?”

I’d make these points about Syria.

1) The U.S. and its Coalition has been “intervening” in Syria for a long time, bombing with abandon ISIS in Syria and civilians under its domination. I can’t recall the “anti-imperialists” condemning and demonstrating against those attacks.
2) It’s the Syrian people not some western media “script” who have been calling for help. Once Assad began slaughtering them Syrians pleaded for no-fly zones, and weapons to shoot down Assad planes. The West is generally uninterested in their plight (and has never been interested in overthrowing the Assad regime). The West has refused to even use its radar to let them know when the helicopters and barrel bombs are coming. Nor has it tried to end the sieges which right now torment 600,000 people.
3) At this stage in the game denial that Assad forces used poison gas is unconscionable.

Maybe the Ludendorff of the movie was …Ludendorff. Erich Ludendorff was a real person. He was a top German general in World War I and by the end of the war the de facto ruler of Germany. After the revolution that threw out the Kaiser, Ludendorff stood with all the forces demanding fascism for Germany. He took part in the Kapp putsch and marched side by side with Adolph Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch.

The Germans did use chemicals and poison gas in World War I, in fact they were the first to use chlorine gas to kill. (Note that Assad has been using chlorine in various forms in between sarin atrocities) Not to deny that all the other parties in WWI joined in with mustard gas and other chemical killing.

Leaving the odious Gadot aside there seems to be plenty to criticize in the movie especially its demonizing of Germany. Reading summaries and reviews of Wonder Woman it sounds like the political point of the movie was to conflate 1916 Germany to 1942 Germany, and pretty up the Allies. Of course, the Great War was a crime on all sides. I can’t think of another movie in recent years glorifying the British-US in World War I. It seems to me that should be the main political criticism of WW.

And then there is this from you: “At this stage in the game denial that Assad forces used poison gas is unconscionable.” Actually, claiming with absolute certainty that Assad forces used poison gas is likely the more unconscionable assertion.

All of your points are unsubstantiated propaganda. The history of Western interference in the Middle East, and the neocons plans for Syria and six other countries (per Wesley Clark) are so well known we can only conclude that you are either unbelievably ignorant or flat out lying. Why you and some other professional lefties like Louis Proyect continue to support the imperial agenda in Syria reflects poorly on you and him. Apparently you and he think you have found a niche. But are the rewards that great that you so debase yourself? Syria is a tragedy due to US/NATO/Israeli/Saudi, etc intervention. I leave you with a link for a video of John Pilger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwLX7k57_8U

I know Louis Protect, and he does not support any imperial agenda. His sympathies are with the Free Syrian Army, which contains the only genuine pro-democracy forces in the country. The FSA is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIL.

Unlike some others here, I actually saw Wonder Woman. It is not an unbalanced anti-German film. True, Wonder Woman initially is led to believe Ludendorff is Ares, but, in a twist, it turns out Ares is the British fellow, Sir Morgan, whom she has believed is her kindly boss. This is meant to condemn both sides in the war – that was a major political point of the movie.

And since Gal Gadot thinks Netanyahu is her boss, perhaps she should be told that Bibi is Ares.

“His sympathies are with the Free Syrian Army, which contains the only genuine pro-democracy forces in the country. The FSA is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIL”

Like Jamal Maarouf former handy man now a major figure in the FSA in Idlib and newly minted billionaire who wanted to continue the hopeless and pointless siege of a government air base because money poured in from the Gulf, yeah you support the revolution that has been televised and the Last Poets and Gil-Scott warned you about it, heedless.

but I see MoA has a great piece up about the loathsome trinity of Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek,
Blumenthal now plagiarising those he formerly condemned, at a crucial moment we might add that fatally blunted any resistance to the USAs’ destruction of Syria and any hopes for freedom in the Arab world.

good read below, I support everything which I also unequivocally condemn, can’t be caught out there. Proyect is a whole order of magnitude more egregious, heinous.

know Louis Protect, and he does not support any imperial agenda. His sympathies are with the Free Syrian Army, which contains the only genuine pro-democracy forces in the country. The FSA is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIL.

What do you know! Now that your recommendation is upon him, Proyect will be doubly certified as a malignant Imperialist propaganda warrior. Like you, a peddler of “genuine pro-democracy forces”, which as we all know are headed by the Only Democracy in the Middle West and the World and provide salvation of the soul by bombing.

I suppose we have to thank you for this endorsement. Louis is sure to be so happy for it.

GOLDMARX- “Wow, all these attacks on Louis Proyect (sorry for the prior typo) without a single shred of evidence that he is pro-imperialist.”

Okay, HALF an imperialist. He opposes Republican imperialism, but supports Democrat imperialism (“humanitarian” intervention). Shred of evidence? Read his comments on Syria which read like a State Department handout. Syria is an imperial destabilization, period. Only the willfully blind or those seeking a symbiotic relationship with empire (loyal opposition) would argue otherwise.

Proyect’s position is either utterly incoherent or disingenuous: to maintain an anti-imperialist image he claims he doesn’t support a U.S. imposed no-fly zone–but he calls for Syrian rebels to be supplied with MANPADS (surface-to-air missiles) so they can establish a no-fly zone, and he strongly supports groups like The Syria Campaign that lobby for a no-fly zone.
——————

Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria

Max Blumenthal

[…]By partnering with local groups like the Syrian civil defense workers popularly known as the White Helmets, and through a vast network of connections in media and centers of political influence, The Syria Campaign has played a crucial role in disseminating images and stories of the horrors visited this month on eastern Aleppo. The group is able to operate within the halls of power in Washington and has the power to mobilize thousands of demonstrators into the streets. Despite its outsized role in shaping how the West sees Syria’s civil war, which is now in its sixth year and entering one of its grisliest phases, this outfit remains virtually unknown to the general public.

The Syria Campaign presents itself as an impartial, non-political voice for ordinary Syrian citizens that is dedicated to civilian protection. “We see ourselves as a solidarity organization,” The Syria Campaign strategy director James Sadri told me. “We’re not being paid by anybody to pursue a particular line. We feel like we’ve done a really good job about finding out who the frontline activists, doctors, humanitarians are and trying to get their word out to the international community.”

Yet behind the lofty rhetoric about solidarity and the images of heroic rescuers rushing in to save lives is an agenda that aligns closely with the forces from Riyadh to Washington clamoring for regime change. Indeed, The Syria Campaign has been pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria that would require at least “70,000 American servicemen” to enforce, according to a Pentagon assessment, along with the destruction of government infrastructure and military installations. There is no record of a no-fly zone being imposed without regime change following —which seems to be exactly what The Syria Campaign and its partners want.

This article is pure horseshit. The twist about Ares being the big bad is not a knock on pacifism. First of all the armistice in WWI WAS a dumpster fire that ultimately made Hitler’s rise possible. So his comment about “an armistice that won’t hold”…is what happened in real life. Secondly, when you get down to it politicians are the ones who can truly cause and end wars; so the warmonger disguising himself as….a politician makes perfect sense. If anything it’s a commentary that the politicians are the ones with the power to create conflict and suffering. Third, given that Diana’s blue screen of death comes from realizing that humans can be shitty all on their own and that she overcomes it be realizing that while we can be flawed we can be noble too, it’s hardly militaristic.

Also Assad IS murdering his own people. The regime has a long history of being violent and ruthless

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.